Four Ways Democrat Candidates Avoid Talking Abortion

Americans want to know what the Presidential candidates will actually do about abortion, but the fourth Democratic debate on Tuesday night didn’t exactly supply many answers… though it wasn’t for a lack of trying. With increasing enthusiasm as each debate has come & gone, both the pro-choice and pro-life movements have been begging debate moderators to dig in to abortion more; Planned Parenthood and NARAL, America’s abortion powerhouses, even coined a social media campaign: “#AskAboutAbortion.”

For the fourth time, we were spared the gory details of Democratic true support for abortion, through all nine months, for any reason, and taxpayer-funded. That extreme position is the official platform of the Democratic Party, and onlhy 7% of millennials agree with it (which, if you’re doing the math, means about 77 million of us do not). So their consistent habit of avoiding the details is not a Sherlock Holmes-caliber mystery.





Loudly declaring support for full-term birthday abortions, “having a conversation” between mother and doctor about killing babies after birth, zero regulations for chemical abortion drugs, and discrimination abortions (based on sex, race, or condition like Down Syndrome) are not winning talking points for them. Better to just stick to the approved list of lexicon like choice, freedom, & equality.

In order to get this far in a civilized society while espousing the belief that it’s morally acceptable to crush the skulls of viable babies, concepts must be packaged delicately, with a wrapping of “avoiding the actual issue” and garnished with a “vague rhetoric” bow on top. Last night’s strategy for appearing non-criminally insane on abortion wasn’t too complex.

The “Medicare for All” Mask

First, they buried it under Medicare for All. We live in a land of people who have been blessed enough not to have endured much hardship, making us entitled and naive. We didn’t overthrow a tyrannical British government or storm Normandy. The notion that “good times create weak men” holds a fair bit of weight, historically-speaking. So, with “free socialized healthcare” being such a hot item right now, Democrats have opted to nestle taxpayer-funded abortion in there amongst the astronomical costs and eventual plan to euthanize inconvenient sick people. Oh, they didn’t even use the word “abortion,” but the authors confirmed it’s included. Taxpayers need to be cognizant of this plan: should Democrats instate Medicare for All, they plan to force taxpayers to fund abortion.




Add Some More Bureaucracy and Pack the Court

Second, there was talk at the debate of “packing the court.” This authoritarian concept involves altering the number of Justices allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. Not every candidate was on board with the idea, but “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg had no problem sounding like a raving lunatic when he said he supported packing the court, but that he wanted to depoliticize it, but also he would only nominate pro-abortion judges. Pete’s confusion aside, the concept is disgraceful. Assembling even more unelected officials to crush the will of the people is not a solution; it’s what authoritarians do when majority opinion doesn’t allow them to get their way. It’s a power grab.

Throw Love at Roe

Third, candidates discussed codifying Roe v. Wade while avoiding what Roe actually is – silencing states’ rights to make their own legislative decisions on the issue and allowing abortion through all nine months and for any reason. If you ask a pro-choice millennial if they support abortion and Roe v. Wade, they’ll say yes. If you tell them what Roe v. Wade is, they’ll say no, and you end up with the stat that 7% of millennials agree with it and want states to make the decision – not the feds. So one of the Democrat solutions for protecting abortion is to pass a law codifying Roe. But do they mean Roe as it looks in the extreme DNC platform? It’s a question worth asking.

Limits are Lame

And number four relates to what is the end of the road for Tulsi Gabbard, who suggested that third-trimester abortion may not be so great. There is no love for abortion limits in the Democratic party of 2019. Anything that “restricts access,” like suggesting abortion might be bad when babies can feel pain or that late-term abortionists shouldn’t be allowed to inject fetal hearts with digoxin and induce a heart attack, is no longer on the table. Candidates are either all-in or exiled from the party. Not to mention, this extends to limits pertaining to the mother’s safety, as well. Any questioning of abortion facilities using duct tape on their procedure room stirrups, splashing “abortion-related” fluids around the room and never cleaning it up, or utilizing hallways/doors that can’t fit EMT gurneys is not allowed. Because it “restricts access” and abortion is more important than literally anything else.



Read the Fine Print

These candidates are not messing around. The absolute kindest thing the moderators can do for them is to continue to allow them to spare the country of their grotesque notions. But it’s a disservice to voters who should be aware that today’s Democrats may as well be on Planned Parenthood and rest of the abortion industry’s payroll. This election season… make sure to read the fine print.


**This article was republished from studentsforlife.org by Brenna Lewis**

Photo Source: Flickr.com. Uploaded by euranet_plus**

Follow us on Twitter